Investigating allegations of research misconduct: the vital need for due process.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The Stoke CNEP saga - did it need to take so long?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2010
   Article
2. The Stoke CNEP Saga - the Government enquiry in retrospect.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2010
   Article
3. The role of the media in the Stoke CNEP saga.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2010
   Article
4. Mis-investigating alleged research misconduct can cause widespread, unpredictable damage.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2010
   Article
5. Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: a review of the literature.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2004
   Review
6. Ethics review roulette: what can we learn?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004
   Article
7. Defensive practice among psychiatrists: a questionnaire survey.Postgraduate medical journal · 2002
   Article
8. Open letter to the chief medical officer.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001
   Article
9. Investigating allegations of research misconduct. Worst outcome of Griffiths report would be that research becomes increasingly difficult.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000
   Article
10. Inquiring into inquiries.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Inquiring into inquiries.2000
• Commented on by
  Response from members of the Griffiths inquiry.2000
• Commented on by
  Investigating allegations of research misconduct. Worst outcome of Griffiths report would be that research becomes increasingly difficult.2000
• Commented on by
  Investigating allegations of research misconduct. CNEP trial was greatly flawed.2000
• Commented on by
  Investigating allegations of research misconduct. British association of perinatal medicine welcomes analysis of Griffiths report.2000
• Commented on by
  Investigating allegations of research misconduct. It is time to learn the lessons from Stoke.2000
• Commented on by
  Investigating allegations of research misconduct. Nothing but the truth must emerge from these investigations.2000
• Commented on by
  Investigating allegations of research misconduct. Some questions still need answers.2000

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as